lusterniafandomcom-20200216-history
Report 1293
Report #1293 Skillset: Aeonics Skill: Timelessbody Org: Institute Status: Completed Aug 2016 Furies' Decision: Solution 1. Problem: TimelessBody is a defence which has a chance of blocking the following afflictions from being applied to the user: piercedlimb, rigormortis, dislocatedlimb, gashedcheek, puncturedlung, sliceddear, laceratedlimb. The majority of these afflictions have been or will be removed, and thus should be changed to to post-overhaul equivalents. 0 R: 0 Solution #1: Change Timelessbody to have a chance of blocking the following afflictions: rigormortis, damagedlimbs, internalbleding, damagedskull. 0 R: 0 Solution #2: Change Timelessbody to have a chance of blocking the following afflictions: rigormortis, paralysis, sickening, pox, haemophilia, internalbleeding. 0 R: 0 Solution #3: Change Timelessbody to not block any afflictions, and instead provide 1/4 balance bonus. Player Comments: ---on 8/10 @ 13:16 writes: Solution 1 is the most direct equivalent (though recognizing that there are some inevitable differences in converting). Solution 2 a different idea due to most of the pre-overhaul afflictions being herb cures, and dust being closest to an herb, sorta, and recognizing the changed context of ice afflictions makes blocking them more powerful. Solution 3 changes the focus entirely away from rng affliction blocker, to a small mostly offensive buff. Useful to both Institute and Sentinels, due to Harmonics being balance-based. ---on 8/10 @ 13:19 writes: Timelessbody has always been a pretty simple and boring skill, but if anyone has any cool ideas, let me know. ---on 8/10 @ 22:06 writes: I think solution 1 is the best. I could do sol 2 with the removal of asthma, aeonics already provides mindclock for aeon resistance, they don't need to resist the locking solutions either. ---on 8/11 @ 13:22 writes: I could also see it being a RoA-esque thing potentially, thematically. ---on 8/11 @ 22:38 writes: Removed asthma from Solution 2. I agree it's probably too much. ---on 8/13 @ 16:00 writes: Solution 1 sounds best to me. ---on 8/14 @ 19:07 writes: Thinking more about this - I'd actually lean towards sol 3, but with a power cost and a limited time. Institue in general have a lot of affliction avoidance already, between Mindclock, Insight, TimelessBody, PastGlimpse, FutureGlimpse, Switchfate, Foresight and Contingency (which is a bit different) - aeonics already has lots of affliction avoidance. I think it may be better to take this oppurtunity to reduce some of this and change up Timelessbody into something else. I realize that this report is trying to maintain status quo, but the status quo is already really nice, Institue should have some weaknesses rather than a good spread of protection against everything. Another option may be prudent. ---on 8/14 @ 21:44 writes: I don't think that would be worth it, unless the balance bonus was quite significant. Especially considering that many of those skills do already last a limited amount of time. ---on 8/17 @ 13:48 writes: Another option would be to have this ability cost power with a higher chance of working, and last for a limited amount of time. That way instead of being something that you leave on as a defense it's something you have to use strategically to manage your power. ---on 8/22 @ 04:05 writes: I could get behind Wobou's solution. ---on 8/23 @ 16:43 writes: I don't mind a temporary power defense in principle, but I'd rather go with a balance buff or other change over affliction avoidance for that. Reasoning being that the chance to avoid will need to be higher to justify the cost, which can be frustrating for any class reliant on those afflictions. At a lower rate, this is less of a problem (though still existent, thus the appeal of Solution 3 as it stands). ---on 8/28 @ 17:07 writes: The problem with a balance bonus is that spinning rubies and more importantly, shatterplex use balance. You already have a limited time window to cure out of massivetimewarp before dying to timequake. Adding a balance bonus lowers that threshold. I simply can't support anything that makes an already strong kill method even stronger. This is why I suggested a power cost + time limit instead of a straight up balance bonus. This ideally would prevent it from being usuable during the shatterplex/timequake but allow you use during other times. Institute is already one of the strongest defensive AND offensive classes out there, it certainly doesn't need help in either area. ---on 8/28 @ 20:49 writes: What numbers were you thinking that avoids interacting with Timequake? I don't think Solution 3 will impact Shatterplex -> Timequake much. Right now, Malefact and Shatterplex have a base of 2s. Based on testing, truetime enchant brings aeon actions to .9s (please correct me if I'm wrong here), leaving 1.8s to escape shatterplex + beast -> timequake in 2 actions, or 3.6 to escape malefact + beast -> shatterplex -> timequake. This should be more accurate should the aeon action queue be implemented, reducing the ping factor. A balance bonus of 5 is required to equal the truetime aeon actions, only regularly achievable with candy, I think, in which case this would have no effect. In the case of no truetime, kabob by itself already gets under the threshold. I think it will largely remain the case that surviving Timequake or not will rely on making the correct curing and hindering decisions. ---on 8/29 @ 00:35 writes: If you lower the balance low enough to only allow one chance to cure the shatterplex->timequake combo, that's a pretty substantial improvement. It would only require you to lower your shatterplex balance by 0.3s to achieve. Most importantly, I just don't think the Institute need that kind of buff to achieve their kill strategies as they are already among the strongest in the game and would instead be an unneeded buff with far reaching consequences. I think there are other options you can go with here. I believe a 5 balance bonus is stronger than 0.1s as well, and more along the lines of 0.2-0.3 bonus (this is testing with my destruction and a red lollipop). ---on 8/29 @ 01:28 writes: What I meant was 5 balance making a 2s balance into 1.8, equaling two actions under aeon with truetime. Solution 3 doesn't achieve that, thus there should be little effect on Timequake viability. As it's not a 'pressure strategy', being faster or slower by partial seconds doesn't matter except to reach specific thresholds, which is not changed here. I see this having the most effect on warriors (which is potentially reason enough to stray away from Solution 3 as written). ---on 8/29 @ 02:38 writes: Right, so bumping that up above 5 is going to push you into that limit and adding a balance bonus just makes that easier. I simply don't think it's needed, you don't need that offensive buff. It doesn't take a large buff to put this into 'crazy' zone. ---on 8/29 @ 02:53 writes: I was going to comment that I didn't know of a way to achieve 5 balance buff without the candy, but then I realized the Death domoth minor blessing is a balance buff. Kabob + Herofete + Balance rune = 3. +2 more from the domoth. Though, with either the candy or the domoth, Solution 3 wouldn't have any effect with the /4 limit. ---on 8/29 @ 13:26 writes: In that scenario, yes the /4 will mean this particular bonus will not affect things, but we already have a rune that does 1/11. I don't think that Aeonics needs a balance buff, I think it's an extraneous buff that is un-needed. Can you explain why you think Sentinels and Institute need a balance buff? ---on 8/29 @ 18:37 writes: The intent of Solution 3 was to offer an alternative to chance-based affliction blocking that would be the equivalent of pre-Overhaul Timelessbody functionality. Imo, the buff and max are low enough to not be too significant, though this will have the most effect on warriors due to the sustained nature of their combat vs combo-oriented Institute. As I stated in earlier comments, I'm not opposed to other potential implementations of the idea, though I'm not sure what good numbers would be if a temporary and power-costing version were to be implemented.